tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News January 19, 2014 11:00am-12:01pm PST
info about citizens. we'll see how it plays out. "fox news sunday" is up next. before we go, the cutest d.c. resident, check out bao bao making her public debut this weekend. i'm chris wallace. president obama sets new limits on government surveillance, but finds it much harder to strike the balance as president than it was as a candidate. >> no more illegal wiretapping of american citizens. no more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. we cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications. >> we'll discuss the new reforms with the former head of the nsa and cia, general michael hayden. and the senator judiciary committee patrick leahy, hayden
and leahy on "fox news sunday." then obama's troubles continue with heightened security for the website. >> i don't see how we are looking into whether the website is secure or not, it is. >> it is in secure? >> it is insecure 100%. >> we'll have david kennedy just how vulnerable the obamacare website really is. and our power player of the week, using 3-d printers to save lives. >> you can think about it just like an inkjet printer, except in this case it builds the three-dimensional layer at one time. >> all right now on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. president obama trying to deal with a growing uproar over government surveillance friday looking to strike a new balance between national security and civil liberties. we've invited two men at the center of the debate to discuss what the president did and
didn't do. general michael hayden is former head of the nsa and the cia charged to gather intelligence to keep the country safe. general patrick leahy is chair of the senate judiciary committee and introduced legislation to cutback even more on government surveillance. gentlemen, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good morning. >> let's start with the big picture, general hayden, what do you think of the president's reforms that he announced friday, does he compromise this nation's security? >> chris, there's an awful lot to like about the speech. that first third is the most robust defense of why we conduct intelligence and how we conduct intelligence that the president's made since he's been in office. if he had been giving that speech for the last six months, i'm not so sure he would have had to make this speech at the department of justice. now, when you get into the substance, what he changed, there's a clear pattern with both domestic and the foreign piece. he's going to cutback on
capacities. he hopes at the margins, cutting into agility a bit, putting administrative burdens on, that could be risky. but he looks like he's willing to accept that risk in order to fundamentally preserve the programs. >> all right. we're going to get into the detail in a moment, but let me get the big picture from you, senator leahy, does the president go far enough in protecting americans' privacy? >> i think he's trying to protect americans. and you always have a balance between the privacy and protection. the concern that many have had, and this is uniting republicans and democrats across the political spectrum in the house and the senate, is regarding too much into american's privacy. do we collect everything or do we have anything as we found in the past. sometimes we have too much stuff that we don't go through it. he's laid out a framework of the things he might do. there's still going to be legislation on this.
for example, attorney general holder is coming to -- before the senate judiciary committee on january 29th, the day after the president's state of the union message. we are going to ask him a lot of questions because a lot of it was between what he and the head of national intelligence have to work out. there's going be a lot of questions from both republicans and democrats who are concerned we are going too much in the privacy of americans. >> okay. let's get into some detail. i think it is fair to say i think the biggest debate is over the collection of metadata, the records of billions of american phone calls, not the content, but the fact that my number called your number, how long that call lasted. here's what the president said about this on friday. >> i believe we need a new approach. i am therefore ordering a transition that will end the
section 215 bulk metatada program as it currently exists and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata. >> the president wants the nsa to get court approval before it can search the database. he wants someone other than the government to hold the records and to pursue calls only two steps removed from a suspected number instead of the current three steps removed. general hayden, given the fact that the current nsa director, keith alexander, says that this bold collection of metadata only prevented one or two plots at the most, can't you live with those restrictions? >> it appears they have to live with those restrictions, chris, but let's take them one at a time. two versus three hops. look, when you get to the third hop -- >> basically, let me explain, they identify there's a bad number, currently they can say, well, okay, this number called that number, called that number, called that number, three hops. now it would be only two hops.
>> now look, if the third hop weren't useful from time to time, we wouldn't have been doing its in the first place. but by the time you get out there, you really pretty much discover everybody has a dennis and everybody orders pizza. so there's an impact but it is marginal. i'm a little more concerned about going to the court every time you want a query of the data. they have the data in the big database and have what's called a seed number, almost always a foreign number, you get a cell phone from a safehouse in yemen and you want to access that database as that seed number, that bad number you now have, has it been in contact with numbers here in the united states? and the standard is, do you have a reasonable, arcticable suspicion that that number is al qaeda related? that's a professional intelligence judgment. i don't know what role the court has in adding value. and judge banks, former head of the court in a letter to congress specifically said that. >> senator leahy, let me pick up
with you, because in your legislation the usa freedom act, you are calling for an end to the bulk collection of this metadata. are you going to fight the president on this? >> no, i have a way we can do th this. is congress going to do this -- the court was very critical a few years ago. the abuses of the procedures we had to collect data are soon to clamp down. i worry because we just saw what happened, for example, the snowden thing, there's so much on snowden, we still don't know everything that was stolen. and that worries you. they have your telephone calls, general hayden's telephone calls, my telephone calls, where is all this going? i would rather have somebody overseeing where you get it. now, on the question of being an
emergency, the president may very well clear that emergencies go to the court afterward. i think there should be an oversight. think back to jay edgar hoover's time, when they were spying on protesters in the vietnam war with martin luther king, if he had the powers in here, think what might have happened. we americans believe in our safety. we also believe in our ability to do -- to be private. i was a prosecutor for eight years. i believe in going after the bad guys and realize this is an entirely different level of the bad guys i went after, but you still have to have some checks and balances before a government that can run amuck. >> let me go to another subject, because perhaps the most controversial reform that the president announced friday is to extend privacy rights to foreigners. here's what the president had to
say about that. >> people around the world regardless of their nationality should know that the united states is not spying on ordinary people who don't drain our national security. and we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures. >> senator leahy, i can understand that because of the diplomatic uproar with angela merkel, the idea that we're not going to wiretap or eves drop on our allies, someone like a foreign leader. why on earth would we extend our constitutional protections to foreigners, particularly when we know those countries are spying on us. >> i don't think that's what the president said. as general hayden and i both know without going into classified material we have, as people know, we have relationships with all the intelligence services among our allies. we share a great deal of information from both directions. i think a lot of these countries
were getting feedback against the united states saying, why are they spying on us, too? the president had to say, you know we're being protected. there was a growing and erroneous feeling in other countries that sometimes the united states was wiretapping all of them. and this is probably a way of helping some of our allies say, it's okay for us to cooperate with the united states. >> let me ask you, is this a p.r. move? the president said we will continue to -- >> p.r. is your word. >> i understand that. cyber security, is that what this is basically, that he's saying we're not going to do things we weren't doing already? >> look, if your definition of a p.r. move is to restore trust in confident domestically and abroad, that's exactly what the president's doing. what he's done here, it is very interesting, the president's
play which was very concise. he did not pull back against collection on foreign and to the heads of state and government. the retention of the data and how it is disseminated. and that part he does say, we'll use the same standards that we use for americans, but technically that's practice. i mentioned the administration burden, though. we do that for a great oversight for americans. this is a ten-fold increase in the paperwork requirement. we'll see how much the system can stand that. >> i want to make it fair as we wrap it up. basically, there's a lot less that the president changes than what he does change. and i want to talk about that. the government will still be able to issue national security letters, a broad subpoena power, they will still be able to build
backdoors into software and hardware of prooif companies to pursue information. let me get you briefly because the impression i get, and maybe i'm wrong, general, isn't the basic surveillance structure that george w. bush started after 9/11, isn't that still intact? >> absolutely. and we only have one more item in your list about going after encryption. he said we should pull out. >> the president has a political problem. in a -- he's willing to shave points off flexibility, add administrative burdens, but the objective is to do what he's doing. >> briefly, senator leahy, do you agree? >> i think we are going to maintain our ability to protect
the united states. that's extremely important. >> we'll talk about encryption, we know there's a tax on the new one all the time. >> from forwarding government. which is an enormous part for this country. so we will protect against that. the concern everybody has is to allow our government have such a reach into our public and private lives that we are -- we have a government controlling us instead of us controlling the government. and that's what both republicans and democrats are joined together on the hill to try to change. >> all right. i want to talk about something new, the six-month interim deal between the u.s. and iran goes into effect tomorrow. it would limit iran's
presentation. should congress leave the deal alone or go ahead and pass this legislation which would impose new sanctions. >> chris, i'm a creaturer of the executive branch. you want to give the executive as much running room as possible when it comes to negotiations like this. and so i think having that congressional action just off stage just in the wing may be a po problem. if this is a nuclear program, the iranians are parked here. in the current six month, somewhat freezes it there and gives us transparency, but they are too close. what we've got to do is crank them back. they've got to deconstruct stuff. >> so you would support the legislati legislation? >> i like the threat of additional sanctions hanging out there. >> so far 16 of your democratic
colleagues say they will support imposing new sanctions against iran. are they -- >> i think it's a mistake. and i'm tell you why. we voted for tough sanctions on iran. right now we have tell 5 plus 1, the countries working with iran on this, we had people join us on the sanctions. if we look like we are pre-judging, then you can -- >> if you agree with the white house, if senators vote for that, we are approaching a vote to war? >> i think we screw up the idea to have a real negotiation. if iran wins, we'll win in a nanosecond. >> leave them like that. if you are negotiating
something, you don't have a third party n this case, congress coming involved in that negotiation. >> senator leahy, general hayden, thank you both very much. up next, our sunday panel joins the discussion on the president's nsa comments. go to our facebook page and we may post what you ask. lpou? oh hey, neill, how areou? how was the trip? [ male announcer ] with nearly 7 million investors... [ shirle] he's right here. hold on one sec. [ malennouncer ] ...you'd expect us to have a highly skilled call center. kevin, neill holley's on line one. ok, great. [ male announcer ] and we do. it's how edward jones makes sense of investing. ♪ legs, for crossing. feet...splashing. better things than the joint pain and swelling of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.
if you're trying to ma, now may be time to ask about xeljanz. xeljz (tofacitinib) is a small pill, not an injection or infusion, for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. seris, sometimes fatal infections and cancers have happened in patients taking xeljanz. don't start xeljanz if you have any infection, unless ok with your doctor. tears in the stomach or intestines, low bod cell counts and higher liver tes and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tts before you start and while taking xeljanz, and roinely check certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common, and if you have had tb, hepatitis b oc, or are prone to infections. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you are pregnant, or plan to be. taken twice daily, xeljanz can reduce the joint pain and swelling of moderate to severe ra, even without methotrexate.
ask if xeljanz is right for you. [dog] larrwanna play?arry? even without methotrexate. [announcer] a healthy dog is a playful dog. [dog] let's do this larry. [announcer] help him keep those muscles while he loses a few pounds with beneful healthy weight. de with wholesome rice,real c, even accents of vitamin rich ggies. it's calorie-smart and tastes so good. beneful healthy weight...from purina.
there are fewer and fewer technical restraints on what we can do. that places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do. >> president obama trying to strike the right balance between security and privacy in the wake of the edward snowden case. and now it's time for our sunday
group, brit hume, robert costa of the washington post, kimberly strassel from the washington street journal and walt whit. on one hand, we have the civil liberties folks and the intelligence folks. >> i think the intelligence folks should be happy. he trimmed the program at the edges, he did not dismaple it or propose to dismaple it. he does have the idea of moving all this metadata to some other site. it's not clear he can pull that off because nobody knows where to put it, the phone companies don't want it, but the program remains intact and the president believes in the program and i think what he did was as little as he thought he could get away with politically. he felt he had to do something because the objections par
knowed some of them and were loud. and some people on the left and right were expressing them. >> let's make the point there, the president continues metadata collection, he continues the national security letters, he continues the government's ability to try to penetrate private companies, their software and their hardware, their encryption, to get information. bob, i want to ask you the same question that i asked our two guests in our prior segment, doesn't the president, in effect, maintain the basic surveillance structure that was created after 9/11 by george w. bush? >> he does. there really was a status quo speech in many ways, but the president faces challenges in congress because he's fighting opposition in his own party but rand paul and others in the republican party are forming a new coalition to really push-back against the president's recommendation. >> you know, that's an interesting question, how much trouble do you expect? because a lot of this the president can't do on his own. and one of the things, kim, he talked about in the speech, congress will have to approve if
he moves the metadata, not the collection, but the storage from the nsa to either the phone companies, as brit said don't nt it, or to a private new created third party. and you wonder about that and also wonder about the potential security leaks there and privacy concerns. is congress going to go along with it? >> this is where the drama now shifts to. you did have john boehner come out after that speech, a very short statement, saying we in congress are not going to do anything that's going to degrade the operational ability of the government to continue to protect the country, which does suggest he's going to get pushback on some of the things he suggested. of course, what's interesting is you've had a real shift in the republican party in recent years, too. you've had rand paul, many of these people who are allies and critics of the nsa. and when we had a vote last summer, for instance, in which those critics nearly almost managed to dismantle some of this, so it's going to be very interesting to see if john boehner, republicans now step
up, for those who are actually worried about what the president's proposals will do to the ability to collect intelligence, that they are going to get a group that can actually push back against that. >> i'm going to ask you one other question, kim, for all the talk that the president maintains, is there anything in his speech that gives you heartburn or anything that you look at the reforms and you say, gosh, that may have gone a little bit too far? >> a lot. because he maintains the structure, but what he has done is made this much harder to do. and i'll tell you, there was great thought put into the way this program works. and one of the reasons the president was vague about the things he says is because they don't know how to do the things he's proposing. i'll give you an example, acc d according to the president, we are not spying on our allies anymore. this sounds nice in theory, but what happens when angela merkel gets on the phone with vladimir putin, do you just hang up because he's not necessarily our allie? so how do you make those distinctions? and he was very vague about some
of these, the issue in where you house this data. one of the reasons it was in one spot because it allows you to make a connection. if each of the phone companies make it themselves, you can't make the connections anymore. >> we asked you about this and got one from a fellow appropriately named stephen covert, and he said, why hasn't the congress done anything before this? they knew about the improprieties long ago, why haven't they done anything? >> stephen, i think they are scared and cowardly. they are worried they will be called soft on terrorism, that they will be said to be unpatriotic. if they do anything that goes toward the civil liberties end of the scale,ive seen less oversight on capitol hill as a result, and what you see in general, even as we approach a reauthorization of the patriot act is the sense that, yeah, we
can take some steps but don't want to go so far as to open ourselves to president obama saying, hey, a bomb went off and it was because of the congress that i couldn't do what i needed to do to protect americans. and i think that's a real risk for congress. now, i think they'll have to take some steps and you'll get pat leahy who did the patriot act before, they will say in collection of this data, we have to impose some limits as to government because you want to make sure that people in power don't abuse it proactively. so far, the fact is, to get back to stephen's question, nobody is abusing it. there's no evidence somebody is abusing it. >> that's the correct answer. what improprieties? this program threatens no one unless it's abused. and to date not a single victim has been identified, not a single abuse of the metadata has been identified that harmed anyone in any way.
so that's, i think, the real reason why congress hasn't done anything is that the program has so far worked as intended, although it hasn't done as much as they thought it might have could, but there's no one harmed. >> brit, you know, you get the e-mails, and you're going to get them today. >> i'm going to get them today. >> i get the e-mails, and there are a lot of very loyal patriotic americans who are outraged by this, or outraged by what they have learned of edward snowden. as far as that goes, maybe you can't point to the abuse, but the idea that the government can just vacuum up all this information about law-abiding citizens, they are very offended by it. >> they are offended by the concept of it and that's understandable. what many of them don't understand is that the telephone calls are not being listened in on, it is simply a record of the kind that your phone company gets every time you place a call of the number you call and the duration of the call, the time of the call. that's it. and when you have that, when you think of the number of phone calls made and the volume of the
metadata, this is the ultimate haystack. and you have to -- special procedures have to be undergone to investigate this information. if everyone is supposedly under surveillance with every call, then no one is. >> a lot of people, brit, the tea party folks and the libertarians, they are fearing, unlike you and me, i think we agree on this because we both assume they are listening to whatever is going on, and they should be. >> i don't think they are listening to anything. >> i think they do select everything. i think they look -- i think they have the capacity to. >> that's a different matter. >> right. >> but that's the anxiety out there. if you look at mark, he came out against the speech. some democrats get the e-mails and feel the uneaseness from
their constituents. >> people are getting e-mails saying, you have to put an end to this or put more restrictions on this. but on the other hand, as juan and kim suggest, god forbid there's another attack, you don't want to be the guys who created the security gap. >> look what happened last year when a vote on the nsa came to the house and john boehner voted in support of the nsa establishment. boehner and others are grappling, how hawkish can you be on the campaign trail with a lot of questions out there. >> we have to take a break here, but we'll have you back later to discuss a new report on the benghazi terror attack. up next, just how secure is the obamacare website? one expert warns congress, hackers are a few clicks away from getting to your information. he joins us, next. and be sure to tell us what you think, go to facebook and share your favorite moments from today's show with other fns fans. [ fishing rod casting line, marching band playing ]
and it's her treat. what about a tip? oh, here's one... get an allstate agent. nice! [ female announcer ] switch today and get two safe driving bonus checks a year for driving safely. only from allstate. call an allstate agent and get a quote now. just another way allstate is changing car insurance for good. over the pizza place on chestnut street the modest first floor bedroom in tallinn, estonia and the southbound bus barreli down i-95. ♪ this magic moment it is the story of where every great idea begins. and of those who believed they had thpower to do more. dell is honored to be part of some of the world's great stories. that began much the same way ours did in a little dorm room -- 2713. ♪ this magic moment ♪
this week there was alarming new testimony about the security of the obamacare website. cyber experts told congress the site is vulnerable and personal information of obamacare consumers may be at risk. one of those experts is david kennedy, founder of security firm trusted sack. before that he worked for the nsa and the marines. mr. kennedy, you testified before congress in november and you said that the website was very vulnerable to potential hackers, now after a supposedly new and improved, you testified again this week before congress, and you said the situation is even worse. explain. >> well, when we testified in front of congress in november, chris, what we learned was that they had rushed through what we call the software life cycle where they actually build the application, so when you do
that, security doesn't really get integrated into it. and what happened with the rocket launch in october, they slapped a bunch of servers in to try to fix the website just to keep it up and running so people could go and use it, but the problem is they still didn't embed security into it. so when you have another few hundred developers actually running code to try to keep the site up and running, you increase the line count of code and increases more and more exposures. that's what we saw here over a period of time and that's what we testified on. it's much worse than we saw back in november. >> well, i'm going to ask you about that and how you know that. because you say you did not hack the site, yet you say you can access 70,000 records of various people who have signed up for health care at the website within four minutes. how do you know that if you haven't hacked in? >> there's a technique called password recognizance that allows you to look at how the website performs. and these types of attacks
mentioned here, this is very easy to do. it's an attack that doesn't actually attack the website itself, it extracts information from it and i was allowed to go into the system. think of something this way, when you have a car with the car doors open and the windows open and you can see in. that's how they do it. it is just really wide open. there's no hacking involved. 70,000 was one of the numbers i was able to go up to, i stopped after that. i'm sure it is hundreds of thousands, if not more, and it was done within a four-minute timeframe. so it is wide open. literally, you can open up your browser, go to this and extract all the information without having to hack the information itself. >> let's talk about the information you say that you could access if you were to actually hack the site. names? addresses? social security numbers? birth dates? and you also say that because healthcare.gov is linked to the
irs and the department of homeland security, you could also get in to see what they said about the individual person who had signed up. how do you know that, again, how do you know that you can get this and even get into irs and get into dhs, and if in fact that's the case, what could a hacker do with an awful lot of private information? >> that's a great question. what you look for in assessing websites, i've been doing website security for a number of years, we break into websites all the time, and this is my area of expertise. we look at problematic areas around the website. and if you're seeing these type of exposures just on the website just by looking at it, there's a much more larger problem on the inside. and it's 100% certainty because of how the website was designed and how it was architected and how it was sped along. i used this example in congress, if a car is driving by and i've been a mechanic for four years instead of security, and the engine is making clanking sounds
or blue smoke is popping everywhere and oil is leaking, you probably have a good understanding the engine is bad. that's what's happening in the healthcare.gov infrastructure. you have all these companies, and it is not just hhs and cms, it's a number of different companies that came together to try to match this thing up to make it what it is today. and you're seeing that happen right now. so underneath it -- the problem is, if you look at the integration between the irs, dhs, third-party verification processes, you have all these different organizations that feed into this data for the healthcare.gov infrastructure to provide that information, and if an attacker gets access to that, they have full access into your entire online identity, everything you do from taxes to what you pay, what you make, what dhs has on you from a tracking perspective, as well as obviously what we call personal identifying information, which is what an attacker would use to take a line of credit out of
your account. and it's really damaging. it's one of the largest websites we have with this low of access into our personal lives. >> now, mr. kennedy, the obama administration is not happy with your testimony. in fact, they are pushing back very hard on it. the chief security officer for the website herself was very concerned about vulnerabilities back in october when the website was now launched now says it has been fully tested and it is secure. this is what she said when testifying before congress. >> this security control assessment said all industry standards was an end-to-end test and conducted in a stable environment to allow for testing to be completed in the allotted time. >> ms. fryer now calls for full certification of the site. she says it's secure, sir. >> i have to completely disagree with her. and it's not just myself that is saying this website is insecure, it is seven other independent security researchers that looked
at the research i've done and came to the exact same conclusion. these are folks that work really well in the industry, they are highly respected and have an extensive experience of working for the government. if you rid the testimony and read what she actually said, she said it's done end-to-end security testing. she doesn't say what type of testing, it could have been an audit to look at paperwork, it could have just looked for basic things, but the site itself is not secure. it is much worse off. >> all right. well, let me talk about another complaint, because another government official from hhs says that for all your claims of vulnerabilities, there have been no successful hacks of the website so far. here he is. >> no, there have been no successful attempts of when anyone has been able to attack the system and penetrate it. >> question, if there are so many gaps, and if the site has been up since october 1st, why hasn't anybody exploited it?
>> what they said is there's been no successful attacks they can detect. there's a november testimony on congress that basically said a third-party company was contracted to bill out a security operations center, which would detect these types of attacks. as of november it had not been started yet. if you look at how long the security operation centers take to put into place, it takes months to years to fully implement to detect attacks out there. as of november we have no monitoring detection. from my understanding, it is still not happening to this date, so they are accurate. they have not detected any attacks on the website because they don't have the capability to detect it. and just to throw it into comparison, it said the only experience 32 actual attacks on the website, they don't say what those cause for alarms are, but just a pure statistic, if you have a website that faces the internet, just purely not popular, especially not popular like healthcare.gov, you are going to exhibit 200 attacks on the website per week based on
sheer volume alone. so that shows the capability they don't have on the healthcare.gov website. >> you talk about the fact that a lot of independent cyber security experts side with you about how vulnerable the site is, whether the administration talks about the independent cyber security expert who says unless you have personally hacked the site yourself and you say you haven't, you can't possibly know basically what you claim. here he is. >> if none of us here built healthcare.gov, if we are not actively doing a vulnerability assessment, but an active vulnerability assessment and running the code on healthcare.gov, we can only speculate whether or not those attacks will work. >> mr. kennedy, the administration says that your testimony is based on assumptions, not facts. >> and i have to disagree. the other seven security researchers would also disagree as well.
unfortunately, mr. crush focuses on higher audits than anything else. it's not to throw into question his experience, he does great stuff with veterans for security training and things like that, but he doesn't focus on application security. that's absolutely false. you can definitely tell how secure a website is without penetrating into it and hacking the website. and i wasn't the only one that agreed on the panel. there were three other gentlemen on the panel as well. >> i want to ask you and need a ten-second answer here, since you have testified, has the government gotten in touch with you and said, here, come on in and show us how weak our website is? >> absolutely not. they haven't. and it's been offered and we would do it for free to help out. unfortunately, there's been no contact from them. >> mr. kennedy, thank you. thank you so much for joining us today. >> thank you. >> we'll keep an eye on how the health care website is doing. >> thank you, sir. coming up, the senate intelligence committee says the
attack in benghazi was the work of local militias with no tally to al qaeda. our panel weighs in, next. ♪ [ male announcer ] bob's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack, be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. if you've had a heart attack, be sure to talk to your doctor [ female announcer ] no matter the occasion..., your home's the place everyone gathers. so be ady with a stouffer's lasagna. it's the mouthwatering recipe that keeps them coming back. stouer's. madeith care for your family. verizon innovators are creating air and soil sensor networks that help use water wisely, so american farms can keep growing for generations to come.
i can say with complete confidence that al qaeda was involved in it, and that certainly the state department knew that al qaeda had a major presence in benghazi prior to the attack. >> we have no indication that they directed or planned this attack. and i reiterate a point, every bad guy with a gun isn't al qaeda. they may be a useful shorthand for politicians to use, but it is not born out by facts on the ground. >> a top republican in the senate intelligence committee and state department spokesperson marie hart shortly disagreeing over the role al can
da played in ben day zee. we are back now with the group, and here was the conclusion. the committee found the attacks were preventable based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in libya to include prior threats and attacks against western targets and given the known security shortfalls at the u.s. mission. brit, this is a bipartisan report. are you surprised how tough it is? >> yes, i was surprised. i didn't think it would be -- i thought it would be minor conclusions wi conclusions from the majority, but the minority's view of this was pretty tough. and it was noted that they did say al qaeda was involved. what's fun to watch is the state department's incredible shrinking definition of al
qaeda, which gets done to core al qaeda, which is getting to be so small it is hard to detect anywhere. al qaeda -- >> you have to have a t-shirt that says, i'm with those guys. >> i'm with bin laden all the way and he personally trained me, but that's kind of where we are in the story. and you add to that what came out of the house side this week, the testimony of general hamh, who happened to be in town at the time when this attack happened on september 11th, and he and the others at the pentagon, including the secretary, were in was a terrorist attack from the get-go and they went and panetta went to the white house and told the president there. so the president who waffled about what this was weeks on end was told right on the day it happened it was a terrorist attack. those two things have moved the ball forward. >> let's talk about that, and then we'll get to hamm in a moment, but the report from the
senate intelligence makes it clear, one, al qaeda affiliates were involved, and two, it says that on september 18th, just one week after the attack, the cia and fbi reviewed the videos of the attack and it was clear that it was terror. it was clear that this was not some protest, somebody said a really hostile movie review of that is anti-islam video. that's certainly contradicting what the president and his team were saying in the weeks after the attack. >> it's fascinating when you page through the document, you really see the critique of foggy bottom of the administration leadership within the president's administration. but at the same time, the legs of the steward are really questionable. because this is a bipartisan report, will there be questions about the state's leadership in the coming days be there? sure, but will hillary clinton continue to be the focus of the republican scrutiny? maybe not. >> we'll get to clinton in a second, but let's get right to
general hamm who was the head of the u.s. command in africa at this time, which had military control over u.s. forces in that region, and he testified back in the summer before congress and that testimony was released this week. he testified that within minutes of the attack, quote, to me it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just something sporadic. again, that's directly contradicting the narrative that came out of the white house in the days right after the attack, the narrative i heard and she was sitting right here from susan rice, then the u.n. ambassador on september 16th. i mean, you got the general in charge of africon saying it was terror. >> that's why this report does not end anything, it actually opens up a whole new question and guarantees the story will keep going. because what we found out in this report, i mean, it was a
are seeing condemnation of sort of state and how they handled -- this was security and intelligence failure, which is resulted in this for americans. >> they talked in eastern libya and particularly of al-qaeda. >> they were flooding the zone with reports about deteriorating security. they talked about how trip wires which were meant to bolster security were ignored. they talked about the fact that the cia was paying attention to these things. they bolstered their own security at the annex down the road. the state department completely dropped the ball here. as a result, that news, that information, that settlement combined with the fact that the general's comments about them knowing immediately, it does put this again in a different light and says did the white house understand just how bad this was? did that in fact inspire them to come out with a story in an
election year that simply was not the case of what had actually happened a? >> which brings us to the curious case of secretary of state hillary clinton who is not in the main report issued by this bipartisan senate intelligence committee, is not mentioned one time. but the republican members of the committee had their own appendix in which they said she should be held accountable for benghazi. here is what they said specifically. "she was responsible for ensuring the safety of all americans serving in our diplomatic facilities. her failure to do so clearly made a difference in the lives of the four murdered americans and their families." juan, is that fair? >> i don't think it's fair at all. i think what you have here is a situation whereas the report said, this was preventable. they could have prevented this because they should have been able to shore up security at the counsel -- counsel let.
>> i don't agree with that. they said the intelligence was good and the cia reacted to it, but the state didn't. >> they had some intelligence. carter hamm said there was no evidence of an imminent threat there, attack there. i think they said the intelligence, especially the intelligence assessment given to the president was given to secretary rice was consistent with what secretary rice said here. i think there is a big effort and that's what we see in the appendix of the report by republicans to pull hillary clinton in because hillary clinton is a leading candidate among the democrats and the president in 2016. they want to damage her politically. i don't see this advances it at all. >> you are talking two different kinds of intelligence. the intelligence warnings that were out there and inspired the cia to bolster their own security. >> secretary stevens says, no, i don't want additional security.
>> that's hillary clinton's cul paw built that the state ignored this. it is different from what the white house got about what happened on the day. >> what i don't understand, juan, is how her department which she was head of can be responsible for multiple failures in this thing, and she is blameless. >> do you think she is on 9 -- on the line for security? >> is she ultimately responsible for what happens under her leadership? >> certainly. you have an am bass -- ambassador on the ground -- >> do you think she is blameless? >> i don't think she is blame lest, but who has a bigger cul paw built. >> no one is ever held accountable for anything. if not hillary clinton who in the state department is accountable? there is no one accountable for irs, for this, for health care. it is endless. >> that's a political argument.
>> we can make the model the same texture essentially by a surgeon and look at the model before doing the surgery. >> he is talking about the latest in medical technology. using 3-d printers to create models of hearts and other organs to help surgeons treat their patients. clear reis the lead bioengineer at children's medical center. he says this is a marriage of technology and medicine. >> a complex case would be a child who was born with perhaps multiple heart defects or perhaps unusual anatomy where the 3-d model would be useful to the search and in planning the surgical procedure. >> it starts with sophisticated imaging of the heart. >> preparing this for 3 of h d printing we can remove extra tissues such as small blood vessels. >> and then fed into the printer. >> you can think of it as an ink jet printer except it
builds up a three dimensional model one layer at a time. each piece can be as thin of a layer of hair and 300 or 400 layers for a model. >> it is like skyping except touching and feeling. >> the vice president of the institute says they have used the three-dimensional models in seven cases so far. the imaging is so sophisticated now, what does this give you that imaging doesn't? >> we are dealing with our hands and it is hand-eye coordination. so having a physical model to see it and touch it and physically calculate it which is moves and then makes a huge difference. >> dr. kim showed us on a model of a patient's heart. >> this is a stint and then it is sticking out. so knowing the narrowing and the relative position would
help. >> the uses don't stop there of the doctors at children's are inventing medical devices they need for tough cases. >> the beauty of the 3-d printer is you can almost print anything you can imagine. if a surgeon has a clinical need and an idea we can prototype it on on the 3-d printer and invalidate it through studies where it can be used clinically. >> and they are even working on some day being able to print artificial organs. >> this technology is someways off from reality. i don't think it is science fiction anymore. what they do is enable people to take their ideas and make them reality. i think the 3-d printer almost has unlimited potential in terms of developing new devices and technology. >> very cool. doctors say the planning they do with 3 of h d models makes surgeries quicker and cuts blood loss and is a clear benefit for patients. that's it for today. have a great week and we will see you next "fox news
sunday." >> fox news sunday is a presentation of fox news. this week on "the journal" editorial reports. president obama moves to limit the nsa's surveillance powers. what he is proposing, will it put america at risk? and newly released enrollment numbers raises concerns over just who is signing up. and it will send the administration to attract younger. and as the west gets set, the iran nuclear record, will it be the window of opportunity that president obama hopes it will be? >> welcome to the -- to "the journal editorial report." president obama laid out his plan to